Young v. State
963 S.W.2d 473, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 425, 1998 WL 100339
Opinion
ORDER
Movant appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. He concedes his motion was filed out of time. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k); State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 16 (Mo. banc 1992). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Young v. State, 963 S.W.2d 473, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 425, 1998 WL 100339 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
963 S.W.2d 473 (Young v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Blankenship
830 S.W.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1992)